A randomized controlled cross-over trial and cost analysis comparing endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration and fine needle biopsy

Comparison of EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB for diagnosis of solid pancreatic mass lesions: a meta-analysis of prospective studies

Objective: To quantitatively compare the diagnostic value of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) in solid pancreatic mass lesions using a systematic evaluation method.Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted on public databases to include studies comparing the diagnostic value of EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB in solid pancreatic mass lesions. The combined effect size was estimated using mean difference (MD) and risk difference (RD) respectively, and the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated.Results: The 12 articles (7 RCTs and 5 cohort studies) met the inclusion criteria of this study. The meta-analysis showed that compared with EUS-FNB, EUS-FNA had lower diagnostic accuracy (RD: -0.08, 95% CI: -0.15, -0.01) and specimen adequacy (RD: -0.08, 95% CI: -0.15, -0.02), while higher required number of needle passes (MD: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.12, 0.73). However, EUS-FNB and EUS-FNA presented similar overall complications (RD: 0.00, 95% CI: -0.01, 0.02) and technical failures (RD: -0.01, 95% CI: -0.02, 0.00), without statistically significant differences.Conclusions: Compared with EUS-FNA, EUS-FNB seems to be a better choice for diagnosing suspected pancreatic lesions.

Comparison of the diagnostic yield of rapid versus non-rapid onsite evaluation in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration cytology of solid pancreatic lesions

Background

The role of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of pancreatic lesions is debatable. In this study, we aimed to compare the diagnostic yield of ROSE vs. non-ROSE in solid pancreatic lesions.

Methods

This retrospective single-center study included patients undergoing EUS-FNA of solid pancreatic lesions from 2019-2021. Patients with cystic lesions, those undergoing fine-needle core biopsy, those undergoing repeat procedures, and patients with non-diagnostic smears with less than 6-month follow up were excluded. The diagnostic yield, need for repeat procedures and number of passes required with and without ROSE were analyzed in these patients.

Results

Of the 111 patients included, 56 underwent ROSE. The majority of lesions were malignant in both groups (79.6% ROSE vs. 75% non-ROSE). The diagnostic yield was 96.4% in the ROSE group and 94.5% in the non-ROSE group. Repeat samples were needed in 1 ROSE and 2 non-ROSE patients. The median number of passes made was significantly fewer in the ROSE group (3.5, interquartile range - 3,4) compared with the non-ROSE group (4, interquartile range - 3,5) P=0.01. However, the frequency of procedure-related complications was similar in both groups.

Conclusion

The utilization of ROSE during EUS-FNA of solid pancreatic lesions does not affect the diagnostic yield or the need for repeat samples, but reduces the number of passes needed for acquiring samples.

Cutting edge of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for solid pancreatic lesions

This article provides an extensive review of the advancements and future perspectives related to endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) for the diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs). EUS-TA, including fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB), has revolutionized the collection of specimens from intra-abdominal organs, including the pancreas. Improvements in the design of needles, collection methods, and specimen processing techniques have improved the diagnostic performance. This review highlights the latest findings regarding needle evolution, actuation number, sampling methods, specimen evaluation techniques, application of artificial intelligence (AI) for diagnostic purposes, and use of comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP). It acknowledges the rising use of Franseen and fork-tip needles for EUS-FNB and emphasizes that the optimal number of actuations requires further study. Methods such as the door-knocking and fanning techniques have shown promise for increasing diagnostic performance. Macroscopic on-site evaluation (MOSE) is presented as a practical rapid specimen evaluation method, and the integration of AI is identified as a potentially impactful development. The study also underscores the importance of optimal sampling for CGP, which can enhance the precision of cancer treatment. Ongoing research and technological innovations will further improve the accuracy and efficacy of EUS-TA.

Comparing per-pass performance of 2 types of needles for EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy sampling of pancreatobiliary masses in a randomized trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy sampling (EUS-FNB) has largely replaced FNA for tissue diagnosis of pancreatobiliary mass lesions. However, the optimal number of passes required for the diagnosis of malignancy is not clear. We aimed to compare the per-pass performance of 2 types of fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needles for the detection of malignancy.

METHODS

One hundred fourteen patients referred for EUS evaluation of solid pancreatobiliary mass lesions underwent randomization between biopsy sampling with a Franseen needle and a 3-prong tip needle with an asymmetric cutting surfaces. Four passes of EUS-FNB were taken from each mass lesion. Two pathologists blinded to needle type analyzed the specimens. The final diagnosis of malignancy was made based on FNB specimen pathology, surgery, or a follow-up of at least 6 months after EUS-FNB. The sensitivity of EUS-FNB to diagnose malignancy was compared between the 2 groups. The cumulative sensitivity of detection of malignancy by EUS-FNB was calculated after each pass in each arm. Other characteristics of the specimens including cellularity and blood contents were also compared between the 2 groups. In the primary analysis, lesions categorized as suspicious on EUS-FNB were considered nondiagnostic for malignancy.

RESULTS

Ninety-eight patients (86%) had a final diagnosis of malignancy, and 16 patients (14%) had benign disease. Four passes of EUS-FNB with the Franseen needle detected malignancy in 44 of 47 patients (sensitivity, 93.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 82.5-98.7) and with the 3-prong asymmetric-tip needle in 50 of 51 patients (sensitivity, 98%; 95% CI, 89.6-99.9; P = .35). Two passes of EUS-FNB detected malignancy with a sensitivity of 91.5% (95% CI, 79.6-97.6) with the Franseen needle and 90.2% (95% CI, 78.6-96.7) with the 3-prong asymmetric-tip needle. The cumulative sensitivities at pass 3 were 93.6% (95% CI, 82.5-98.6) and 96.1% (95% CI, 86.5-99.5), respectively. Samples collected with the Franseen needle had significantly higher cellularity than samples collected with the 3-prong asymmetric-tip needle (P < .01). However, no difference as found between the 2 types of needles in term of specimen bloodiness.

CONCLUSIONS

No significant differences were found in the diagnostic performance of the Franseen needle versus the 3-prong asymmetric-tip needle in patients with suspected pancreatobiliary cancer. However, the Franseen needle yielded higher cellularity of the specimen. Two passes of EUS-FNB are required to detect malignancy with at least 90% sensitivity with either type of needle. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT04975620.).

Comparison of Fine-Needle Biopsy (FNB) versus Fine-Needle Aspiration (FNA) Combined with Flow Cytometry in the Diagnosis of Deep-Seated Lymphoma

Evidence comparing ultrasound endoscopy-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) with EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in deep-seated lymphoma tissue sampling is insufficient. This study aims to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of immunohistochemistry (IHC) or flow cytometry (FCM) on specimens obtained from EUS-FNB and EUS-FNA in the diagnosis and staging of deep-seated lymphomas. This real-world, dual-center study prospectively evaluated all eligible specimens from patients who underwent EUS-FNB/FNA over an 8-year period. 53 patients were enrolled, with 23 patients in the EUS-FNB group and 30 patients in the EUS-FNA group. FNB yielded specimens with longer core tissues (0.80 mm [0.55, 1.00] vs. 0.45 mm [0.30, 0.50], p = 0.009) and higher scores of specimen adequacy [4 (3.75, 4.00) vs. 3 (1.00, 4.00), p = 0.025]. Overall analysis revealed that the diagnostic accuracy of IHC based on specimens acquired from EUS-FNB was significantly higher than that of EUS-FNA (91.30% vs. 60.00%, p = 0.013). After controlling confounding factors including lesion size and endoscopists, EUS-FNB with IHC maintained a higher-level diagnostic accuracy compared to EUS-FNA (OR = 1.292 [1.037-1.609], p = 0.023). When FCM was additionally used to analyze the specimen acquired from EUS-FNA, the diagnostic yield was significantly improved (ROC AUC: 0.733 vs. 0.550, p = 0.015), and the AUC of FNB alone or combined with FCM was 0.739 and 0.761. Conclusions: FNB needles generate higher histopathological diagnostic accuracy and specimen quality than FNA for the deep-seated lymphoma. Though the application of FCM significantly improves the diagnostic efficacy of EUS-FNA, FNB was still the preferred diagnostic modality with a shorter procedure time, comparable diagnostic accuracy, and better cost-effectiveness.

Comprehensive review on endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition techniques for solid pancreatic tumor

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is speculated to become the second leading cause of cancer-related mortality by 2030, a high mortality rate considering the number of cases. Surgery and chemotherapy are the main treatment options, but they are burdensome for patients. A clear histological diagnosis is needed to determine a treatment plan, and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition (TA) is a suitable technique that does not worsen the cancer-specific prognosis even for lesions at risk of needle tract seeding. With the development of personalized medicine and precision treatment, there has been an increasing demand to increase cell counts and collect specimens while preserving tissue structure, leading to the development of the fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needle. EUS-FNB is rapidly replacing EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) as the procedure of choice for EUS-TA of pancreatic cancer. However, EUS-FNA is sometimes necessary where the FNB needle cannot penetrate small hard lesions, so it is important clinicians are familiar with both. Given these recent dev-elopments, we present an up-to-date review of the role of EUS-TA in pancreatic cancer. Particularly, technical aspects, such as needle caliber, negative pressure, and puncture methods, for obtaining an adequate specimen in EUS-TA are discussed.

Transesophageal endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition of lung masses: a case series with systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The diagnosis of intraparenchymal lung masses is challenging when lesions are located at sites inaccessible through bronchoscopy or endobronchial ultrasound. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition (TA)-fine-needle aspiration (FNA) or fine-needle biopsy-provides a potentially useful diagnostic tool for lesions located adjacent to the esophagus. This study was conducted to analyze the diagnostic outcome and safety of EUS-guided tissue sampling of lung masses.

Methods

Data were retrieved for patients who underwent transesophageal EUS-guided TA between May 2020 and July 2022 at 2 tertiary care centers. A meta-analysis was performed after pooling these data with studies obtained from a comprehensive search of Medline, Embase, and ScienceDirect from January 2000 to May 2022. Pooled event rates across studies were expressed with summative statistics.

Results

After screening, 19 studies were identified and, after their data had been combined with those of 14 patients from our centers, a total of 640 patients were included in the analysis. The pooled rate of sample adequacy was 95.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] 93.1-97.8), while the pooled rate of diagnostic accuracy was 93.4% (95%CI 90.7-96.1). The pooled rate of adverse events with transesophageal EUS-guided TA from lung masses was 0.7% (95%CI 0.0-1.6%). There was no significant heterogeneity with respect to various outcomes and results were comparable on sensitivity analysis.

Conclusions

EUS-FNA offers a safe and accurate diagnostic modality for the diagnosis of paraesophageal lung masses. Future studies are needed to determine the needle type and techniques for improving outcomes.

Diagnostic Ability of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition Using 19-Gauge Fine-Needle Biopsy Needle for Abdominal Lesions

Attempts at performing endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) with a 19G needle are increasing because histological diagnosis and comprehensive genomic profiling are a necessity. However, the diagnostic ability of the 19G fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needle, especially the third-generation FNB needle, is unclear and has been retrospectively reviewed. The 19G TopGain needle was used in 147 patients and 160 lesions between September 2020 and December 2021. The technical success rate of the biopsies was 99.4% (159/160). The early adverse event rate was 4.1% (6/147), and moderate or severe adverse event rate occurrence was 2.0% (3/147). The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the 19G TopGain needle for 157 lesions with a confirmed diagnosis were 96.7%, 100%, and 96.8%, respectively. Rescue EUS-TA using the 19G TopGain needle was performed for nine lesions, and a successful diagnosis was made in six of these lesions (66.7%). The diagnostic ability of EUS-TA using the third-generation 19G TopGain needle was favorable. However, the use of 19G FNB needles may increase adverse events. Therefore, EUS-TA with a 19G FNB needle is mainly indicated in lesions where comprehensive genomic profiling may be necessary or the diagnosis could not be determined via EUS-TA using the 22G needle.

Endoscopic Ultrasound Guided Fine Needle Aspiration versus Endoscopic Ultrasound Guided Fine Needle Biopsy for Pancreatic Cancer Diagnosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

One of the most effective diagnostic tools for pancreatic cancer is endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) or biopsy (EUS-FNB). Several randomized clinical trials have compared different EUS tissue sampling needles for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-guided FNA as EUS-FNB needles for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer using a systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHOD

A literature review with a meta-analysis was performed according to the PRISMA guide. The databases of PubMed, Cochrane and Google Scholar were used, including studies published between 2011-2021 comparing the diagnostic yield (diagnostic accuracy or probability of positivity, sensitivity, specificity, predictive value) of EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy. Random effect models allowed estimation of the pooled odds ratio with a confidence interval (CI) of 95%.

RESULTS

Nine randomized control trials were selected out of 5802 articles identified. Among these, five studies found no statistically significant difference between the EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB, whereas the other four did. The meta-analysis found EUS-FNB accuracy superior to EUS-FNA for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer with a pooled odds ratio of 1.87 (IC 95%: 1.33-2.63).

CONCLUSION

As compared to EUS-FNA, EUS-FNB seems to improve diagnostic accuracy when applied to suspicious pancreatic lesions.

A Meta-Analysis Comparing Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Fine-needle Aspiration With Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Fine-needle Biopsy

BACKGROUND

The superiority between endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) is still a debate. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the diagnostic value and safety of these 2 needles in sampling of all solid lesions and separately pancreatic lesions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane library were searched for randomized controlled studies that reported the comparison of FNA and FNB in solid mass. Outcome measures included diagnostic accuracy, number of needle passes, diagnostic adequacy, presence of tissue cores, and adverse events. Standard error, upper and lower confidence intervals at 95% confidence interval for the risk were obtained using Review Manager Version 5.3 which was also used to generate forest plots for pooled analysis. The random or fixed effect model was applied depending on the heterogeneity ( I2 ).

RESULTS

Eighteen randomized control trial studies with a total of 2718 patients (1141 patients with EUS-FNA, 1108 with EUS-FNB, and remaining 469 patients were sampled with both needles alternatively) were included in the meta-analysis.FNB group has relatively good diagnostic accuracy relative risk (RR): 0.94, 0.92-0.97; P =0.0002), diagnostic adequacy (RR: 0.95, 0.9-1.0; P =0.04) and high quality histologic yield compared (RR: 0.77, 0.64-0.93; P =0.007) with the FNA group in solid gastrointestinal lesions, and the number of needle passes to obtain sufficient tissue (mean difference: 0.54, 0.45-0.64; P <0.00001) was lower in the FNB group. For solid pancreatic disease only, there was no difference in diagnostic accuracy (RR: 0.97, 0.93-1.01, P =0.13) or quality histologic yield (RR: 0.60, 0.29-1.23; P =0.16). The rate of adverse events (RR: 1.04, 0.48-2.29; P =0.92) did not significantly differ between FNA and FNB groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In solid gastrointestinal lesions, FNB is associated with a relatively better diagnostic adequacy, diagnostic adequacy and tissue cores rates, and less number of needle passes. For solid pancreatic disease only, there is no difference in diagnostic accuracy or tissue cores rates.

Endoscopic ultrasound with combined fine needle aspiration plus biopsy improves diagnostic yield in solid pancreatic masses

GOALS

Our aim was to compare the diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) versus combined fine needle aspiration and fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNA + FNB) in the evaluation of solid pancreatic masses (SPMs).

BACKGROUND

EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB are established methods to diagnose SPMs. No studies have evaluated the efficacy of combination of both (EUS-FNA + FNB). Our senior author (MRS) hypothesized that combining the two techniques by using a single FNB needle improves diagnostic yield and started combination technique in October 2016.

STUDY

Patients who underwent EUS for SPMs by MRS during January 2014-September 2019 were included. They were divided into the EUS-FNA group and EUS-FNA + FNB group. EUS-FNA was performed using a 22 or 25 gauge Expect Slimline needle (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA) and EUS-FNA + FNB was performed using a single 22 or 25 gauge Shark-core needle (Medtronics, Minneapolis, MN, USA). Our primary outcome was to compare the diagnostic yield in the two groups.

RESULTS

Among 105 patients included, 58 were in the EUS-FNA group and 47 were in the EUS-FNA + FNB group. EUS-FNA + FNB group had significantly higher diagnostic yield and required fewer needle passes compared to EUS-FNA group, 95.7% vs. 77.6%, p = .01: and 4 vs. 5, p = .002; respectively. Procedural duration was similar in both groups but the combined technique required less number of needles per procedure. There was no difference in adverse events in the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Our study showed that combined EUS-FNA + FNB had higher diagnostic yield compared to EUS-FNA in SPMs along with less number of needle passes and needles required. Further prospective studies are needed to validate these findings and cost-effectiveness of this strategy.

The Role of Endoscopic Ultrasonography in the Diagnosis and Staging of Pancreatic Cancer

Pancreatic cancer is the fourth leading cause of cancer-related death and the second gastrointestinal cancer-related death in the United States. Early detection and accurate diagnosis and staging of pancreatic cancer are paramount in guiding treatment plans, as surgical resection can provide the only potential cure for this disease. The overall prognosis of pancreatic cancer is poor even in patients with resectable disease. The 5-year survival after surgical resection is ~10% in node-positive disease compared to ~30% in node-negative disease. The advancement of imaging studies and the multidisciplinary approach involving radiologists, gastroenterologists, advanced endoscopists, medical, radiation, and surgical oncologists have a major impact on the management of pancreatic cancer. Endoscopic ultrasonography is essential in the diagnosis by obtaining tissue (FNA or FNB) and in the loco-regional staging of the disease. The advancement in EUS techniques has made this modality a critical adjunct in the management process of pancreatic cancer. In this review article, we provide an overall description of the role of endoscopic ultrasonography in the diagnosis and staging of pancreatic cancer.

Development of a Novel Evaluation Method for Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Biopsy in Pancreatic Diseases Using Artificial Intelligence

We aimed to develop a new artificial intelligence (AI)-based method for evaluating endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) specimens in pancreatic diseases using deep learning and contrastive learning. We analysed a total of 173 specimens from 96 patients who underwent EUS-FNB with a 22 G Franseen needle for pancreatic diseases. In the initial study, the deep learning method based on stereomicroscopic images of 98 EUS-FNB specimens from 63 patients showed an accuracy of 71.8% for predicting the histological diagnosis, which was lower than that of macroscopic on-site evaluation (MOSE) performed by EUS experts (81.6%). Then, we used image analysis software to mark the core tissues in the photomicrographs of EUS-FNB specimens after haematoxylin and eosin staining and verified whether the diagnostic performance could be improved by applying contrastive learning for the features of the stereomicroscopic images and stained images. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of MOSE were 88.97%, 53.5%, and 83.24%, respectively, while those of the AI-based diagnostic method using contrastive learning were 90.34%, 53.5%, and 84.39%, respectively. The AI-based evaluation method using contrastive learning was comparable to MOSE performed by EUS experts and can be a novel objective evaluation method for EUS-FNB.

Usefulness of Macroscopic On-Site Evaluation Using a Stereomicroscope during EUS-FNB for Diagnosing Solid Pancreatic Lesions

METHODS

We reviewed a total of 60 consecutive patients who underwent both S-MOSE and rapid on-site cytopathological evaluation (ROSE) during EUS-FNB between July 2019 and October 2020, and the usefulness of S-MOSE in comparison with histology was evaluated. A 22-gauge Franseen needle was used to perform EUS-FNB in all patients, and only the specimens obtained by the first pass were evaluated. The final diagnosis was based on the surgical specimen or the clinical course consistent with the EUS-FNB results.

RESULTS

The final diagnoses of the 60 patients included 45 patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, 6 with autoimmune pancreatitis, 4 with mass-forming pancreatitis, 1 with pancreatic metastasis, 2 with pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor, and 2 with intraductal papillary mucinous carcinoma. The histological diagnostic accuracy of the first pass of EUS-FNB was 83.3% (50/60). The agreement between the S-MOSE and the histological diagnosis was 90% (54/60). The positive predictive value of S-MOSE for histological diagnosis was 90.7%, which can be an indicator of when to stop the EUS-FNB procedure. There were no immediate or delayed adverse events reported after the FNB based on the chart and medical visit history review.

CONCLUSION

In the EUS-FNB of SPLs, S-MOSE can be an alternative to ROSE for specimen evaluation and has the potential to shorten the procedure time.

Adequacy evaluation and use of pancreatic adenocarcinoma specimens for next-generation sequencing acquired by endoscopic ultrasound-guided FNA and FNB

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA), especially endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA), is the mainstay of tissue acquisition for the diagnosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Recently, endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) using flexible biopsy needles has been used for patients with PDAC in an effort to increase diagnostic yields and biomarker testing. However, the role of EUS-TA in biomarker testing for personalized therapy or precise chemotherapy for PDAC is not well established.

METHODS

PDAC cases with specimens acquired through concurrent EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB were identified retrospectively. Smears were prepared from EUS-FNA sampling, and cell blocks (CBs) were prepared from EUS-FNB sampling. Rapid onsite evaluation was conducted for all cases for diagnostic adequacy. The adequacy for biomarker testing, including next-generation sequencing (NGS) and immunohistochemistry (IHC) assays, was evaluated, and cases with smears and CBs adequate for NGS were processed for targeted NGS.

RESULTS

There were 26 PDAC cases concurrently sampled by EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB. EUS-FNA smears for all 26 cases and EUS-FNB CBs for 20 cases (77%) were diagnostic for PDAC. Twenty-one smears (81%) and 11 CBs (42%) were adequate for NGS. Nine cases with both smears and CBs adequate for NGS underwent NGS, which identified clinically significant gene mutation variants, including KRAS, TP53, and SMAD4 mutations.

CONCLUSIONS

Both EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB can provide optimal material for targeted NGS for PDACs. In PDAC cases subjected to concurrent EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB, EUS-FNA specimens had greater diagnostic yields and more adequate material for NGS than EUS-FNB specimens, whereas EUS-FNB was more suitable for IHC-based biomarker testing.

Endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration vs fine needle biopsy in solid lesions: A multi-center analysis

BACKGROUND

While endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) is considered a preferred technique for tissue sampling for solid lesions, fine needle biopsy (FNB) has recently been developed.

AIM

To compare the accuracy of FNB vs FNA in determining the diagnosis of solid lesions.

METHODS

A retrospective, multi-center study of EUS-guided tissue sampling using FNA vs FNB needles. Measured outcomes included diagnostic test characteristics (i.e., sensitivity, specificity, accuracy), use of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE), and adverse events. Subgroup analyses were performed by type of lesion and diagnostic yield with or without ROSE. A multivariable logistic regression was also performed.

RESULTS

A total of 1168 patients with solid lesions (n = 468 FNA; n = 700 FNB) underwent EUS-guided sampling. Mean age was 65.02 ± 12.13 years. Overall, sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were superior for FNB vs FNA (84.70% vs 74.53%; 99.29% vs 96.62%; and 87.62% vs 81.55%, respectively; P < 0.001). On subgroup analyses, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of FNB alone were similar to FNA + ROSE [(81.66% vs 86.45%; P = 0.142), (100% vs 100%; P = 1.00) and (88.40% vs 85.43%; P = 0.320]. There were no difference in diagnostic yield of FNB alone vs FNB + ROSE (P > 0.05). Multivariate analysis showed no significant predictor for better accuracy. On subgroup analyses, FNB was superior to FNA for non-pancreatic lesions; however, there was no difference between the techniques among pancreatic lesions. One adverse event was reported in each group.

CONCLUSION

FNB is superior to FNA with equivalent diagnostic test characteristics compared to FNA + ROSE in the diagnosis of non-pancreatic solid lesions. Our results suggest that EUS-FNB may eliminate the need of ROSE and should be employed as a first-line method in the diagnosis of solid lesions.

Comparison of contrast-enhanced versus conventional EUS-guided FNA/fine-needle biopsy in diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Contrast-enhanced harmonic EUS (CEH-EUS) is useful in the differential diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs). However, there is lack of verification about the usefulness of CEH-EUS-guided FNA/fine-needle biopsy (FNB) sampling. This study aimed to investigate the usefulness of CEH-EUS-guided FNA/FNB sampling without on-site cytopathology.

METHODS

Patients with SPLs were prospectively enrolled and randomly assigned (1:1) to 2 parallel groups, the interventional group (CEH-EUS) or the control group (conventional EUS). The diagnostic sensitivity and optimal number of needle passes for pathologic diagnosis were investigated and compared between groups.

RESULTS

Two hundred forty patients were enrolled from March 2016 to September 2019, with 120 patients assigned to each group. Pancreatic malignancies and neuroendocrine tumors were found in 202 (90.83%) and 9 (3.75%) patients, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of age, sex, lesion size (30.96 ± 12.09 mm in the CEH-EUS group vs 33.09 ± 16.39 mm in the conventional EUS group; P = .252), lesion location, adverse event rate, and disease distribution. The diagnostic sensitivity values in the CEH-EUS and conventional EUS groups were 85.8% and 88.3%, respectively (P = .564). All patients in the conventional EUS group and most in the CEH-EUS group received a pathologic diagnosis within 3 needle passes.

CONCLUSIONS

Diagnostic sensitivity for SPLs was not different between the CEH-EUS and conventional EUS groups, and no independent factors were found that could improve diagnostic sensitivity. CEH-EUS-guided FNA/FNB sampling does not need to be used routinely and may be selectively considered for small, indeterminate lesions. (Clinical trial registration number: KCT 0001840.).

Endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration vs fine needle biopsy for pancreatic masses, subepithelial lesions, and lymph nodes

Endoscopic ultrasound tissue acquisition, in the form of both fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB), is utilized for pancreatic mass lesions, subepithelial lesions, and lymph node biopsy. Both procedures are safe and yield high diagnostic value. Despite its high diagnostic yield, EUS-FNA has potential limitations associated with cytological aspirations, including inability to determine histologic architecture, and a small quantitative sample for further immunohistochemical staining. EUS-FNB, with its larger core biopsy needle, was designed to overcome these potential limitations. However, it remains unclear which technique should be used and for which lesions. Comparative trials are plagued by heterogeneity at every stage of comparison; including variable needles used, and different definitions of endpoints, which therefore limit generalizability. Thus, we present a review of prospective trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses on studies examining EUS-FNA vs EUS-FNB. Prospective comparative trials of EUS-FNA vs EUS-FNB primarily focus on pancreatic mass lesions, and yield conflicting results in terms of demonstrating the superiority of one method. However, consistent among trials is the potential for diagnosis with fewer passes, and a larger quantity of sample achieved for next generation sequencing. With regard to subepithelial lesions and lymph node biopsy, fewer prospective trials exist, and larger prospective studies are necessary. Based on the available literature, we would recommend EUS-FNB for peri-hepatic lymph nodes.

Impact of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition on Decision-Making in Precision Medicine for Pancreatic Cancer: Beyond Diagnosis

Precision medicine in cancer treatment refers to targeted therapy based on the evaluation of biomarkers. Although precision medicine for pancreatic cancer (PC) remains challenging, novel biomarker-based therapies, such as pembrolizumab, olaparib, and entrectinib, have been emerging. Most commonly, endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) had been used for the diagnosis of PC until now. However, advances in EUS-TA devices and biomarker testing, especially next-generation sequencing, have opened up the possibility of sequencing of various genes even in limited amounts of tissue samples obtained by EUS-TA, and identifying potential genetic alterations as therapeutic targets. Precision medicine benefits only a small population of patients with PC, but biomarker-based therapy has shown promising results in patients who once had no treatment options. Now, the role of EUS-TA has extended beyond diagnosis into decision-making regarding the treatment of PC. In this review, we mainly discuss tissue sampling by EUS-TA for biomarker testing and the current status of precision medicine for PC.

Comparative diagnostic accuracy of EUS needles in solid pancreatic masses: a network meta-analysis

Background and study aims  Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue sampling is the standard of care for diagnosing solid pancreatic lesions. While many two-way comparisons between needle types have been made in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), it is unclear which size and type of needle offers the best probability of diagnosis. We therefore performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare different sized and shaped needles to rank the diagnostic performance of each needle. Methods  We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases through August, 2020 for RCTs that compared the diagnostic accuracy of EUS fine-needle aspiration (FNA) and biopsy (FNB) needles in solid pancreatic masses. Using a random-effects NMA under the frequentist framework, RCTs were analyzed to identify the best needle type and sampling technique. Performance scores (P-scores) were used to rank the different needles based on pooled diagnostic accuracy. The NMA model was used to calculate pairwise relative risk (RR) with 95 % confidence intervals. Results  Review of 2577 studies yielded 29 RCTs for quantitative synthesis, comparing 13 different needle types. All 22G FNB needles had an RR > 1 compared to the reference 22G FNA (Cook) needle. The highest P-scores were seen with the 22G Medtronic FNB needle (0.9279), followed by the 22G Olympus FNB needle (0.8962) and the 22G Boston Scientific FNB needle (0.8739). Diagnostic accuracy was not significantly different between needles with or without suction. Conclusions  In comparison to FNA needles, FNB needles offer the highest diagnostic performance in sampling pancreatic masses, particularly with 22G FNB needles.

Endoscopic Evaluation of Biliary Strictures: Current and Emerging Techniques

The diagnosis of biliary strictures in clinical practice can be challenging. Discriminating between benign and malignant biliary strictures is important to prevent the morbidity and mortality associated with incorrect diagnoses. Missing a malignant biliary stricture may delay surgery, resulting in poor prognostic outcomes. Conversely, it has been demonstrated that approximately 20% of patients who undergo surgery for suspected biliary malignancies have a benign etiology on histopathology. Traditional tissue sampling using endoscopic retrograde cholangiography does not always produce a definitive diagnosis, with a considerable proportion of cases remaining as indeterminate biliary strictures. Recent advances in endoscopic techniques have the potential to improve the diagnostic and prognostic accuracy of biliary strictures.

Endoscopic ultrasound fine needle biopsy was not more cost-effective than fine-needle aspiration with rapid on-site evaluation in gastrointestinal lesions diagnosis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Cost-effectiveness comparison between endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided acquisition techniques by fine-needle aspiration (FNA) and fine needle biopsy (FNB) in gastrointestinal lesions is still scarce. EUS-FNB has been shown to be more cost-effective than EUS-FNA, however, when adding rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) to EUS-FNA, it is unclear whether EUS-FNB remains more cost-effective. Our aim was to assess cost-efficacy of EUS-FNB as compared to EUS-FNA with ROSE in gastrointestinal lesions.

METHOD

All patients who underwent EUS-FNA with ROSE or EUS-FNB at Galilee Medical Center were retrospectively reviewed. Cost-effectiveness analysis was based on the additional EUS sessions needed and on the average cost expenditure to achieve one final pathological diagnosis.

RESULTS

Seventy-four cases were included in the final analysis. Of them, 21 patients (28.4%) were in the EUS-FNB group (group A), as compared to 53 patients (71.6%) who underwent EUS-FNA with ROSE (group B). Additional EUS sessions needed to achieve one final pathological diagnosis were needed in 14.3% of group A patients vs 9.4% in group B patients (P = .5). and, the average cost for achieving one final pathological diagnosis was similar in both groups (1226 ± 369$ for group A vs 1158 ± 309.6.7$ for group B, P = .2). Notably, even after analyzing pancreatic and non-pancreatic gastrointestinal lesions separately, there was no cost benefit of EUS-FNB over EUS-FNA with ROSE.

CONCLUSIONS

Cost-effectiveness analysis was not different between EUS-FNB vs EUS-FNA with ROSE. Thus, the preference of one modality over the other should be based on availability and local expertise.

Comparison of fine-needle aspiration and fine-needle biopsy devices for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of solid lesions: a systemic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition is extensively used, but the optimal sampling device is still a matter of debate. We performed meta-analyses on studies comparing fine-needle aspiration (FNA) with fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needles, and studies comparing different FNB needles.

METHODS

Online databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of at least 50 cases with a suspected solid pancreatic or nonpancreatic lesion that compared FNA with FNB needles. Outcome measures included diagnostic accuracy, adequacy, number of passes, presence of tissue cores, and adverse events. We also performed meta-regression analysis on the effect of FNB design on diagnostic accuracy. Quality was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool.

RESULTS

18 RCTs comparing FNA with FNB needles were included. FNB provided a higher pooled diagnostic accuracy (87 % vs. 80 %; P = 0.02) and tissue core rate (80 % vs. 62 %; P = 0.002), and allowed diagnosis with fewer passes (P = 0.03), in both pancreatic and nonpancreatic lesions. A total of 93 studies were included comparing different FNB devices. Pooled diagnostic accuracy was higher for forward-facing bevel needles than for the reverse bevel needle. In this analysis, study quality was low and heterogeneity was high (I2  = 80 %).

CONCLUSION

FNB outperformed FNA when sampling pancreatic and nonpancreatic lesions. Forward-facing bevel FNB needles seemed to outperform the reverse bevel FNB needle, but the low quality of evidence prevents us from making strong recommendations on the optimal FNB design.

The evolving role of EUS-guided tissue acquisition

The introduction of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration into clinical practice was a pivotal moment for diagnostic gastrointestinal endoscopy. It facilitates the ease of tissue acquisition from previously inaccessible sites. The performance characteristics of cytological diagnosis are excellent. However, there remain areas of inadequacies. These include procedural inefficiencies such as the need for rapid on-site cytological evaluation or macroscopic on-site evaluation, the crucial role of histology for diagnosis in specific conditions, the issue of sampling errors and the need for repeat procedures, and the shift towards personalized medicine, which requires histology, immunohistochemical studies, and molecular analysis. The original Trucut biopsy needle had been cumbersome to use, but the recent introduction of newer-generation biopsy needles has transformed the landscape, such that there is now a greater focus on tissue acquisition for histological assessment. Concomitant technological advances of endoscopic ultrasound processors enabled higher-resolution imaging, and facilitated image enhancement using contrast harmonic endoscopic ultrasound and endoscopic ultrasound elastography. These techniques can be used as an adjunct to guide tissue acquisition in challenging situations. There is ongoing research on the use of artificial intelligence to complement diagnostic endoscopic ultrasound and the early data are promising. Artificial intelligence may be especially important to guide clinical decision-making if biopsy results are nondiagnostic.

Personalized Approach to the Role of Endoscopic Ultrasound in the Diagnosis and Management of Pancreaticobiliary Malignancies

Pancreaticobiliary malignancies arise from different areas within the pancreas and biliary tree. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is a well-recognized diagnostic and therapeutic modality in the treatment of pancreaticobiliary diseases, and more specifically, pancreaticobiliary malignancies. Traditionally used for diagnostic purposes, EUS plays a critical role in tissue sampling and cancer staging. The emergence of the new field of interventional EUS has allowed EUS to also play a critical role in therapeutic management. Novel interventional EUS procedures such as EUS-guided gastrojejunostomy (EUS-GE), EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD), and EUS-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GLB) can be utilized to treat complications of pancreaticobiliary malignancies such as gastric outlet obstruction, obstructive jaundice, and cholecystitis. In addition, interventional EUS procedures can be utilized for the palliation of unresectable malignancies both for source control with EUS-radiofrequency ablation (EUS-RFA) and for the treatment of abdominal pain refractory to opioid medications with EUS-guided celiac axis neurolysis. However, patient selection remains a critical component in both diagnostic and therapeutic interventions and must be tailored to individual patient wishes, disease pathology, and overall prognosis.

Randomized controlled trial comparing the Franseen needle with the Fork-tip needle for EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

EUS-guided FNA primarily provides cytologic samples. EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (FNB) with needles that provide histologic specimens may enhance diagnostic yield and facilitate accessory tissue staining. Several different needle designs are currently available and design superiority is unknown. We designed a randomized controlled trial to compare 2 commonly used EUS-FNB needles in their ability to provide histologic tissue samples (primary endpoint) and to reach an accurate diagnosis (secondary endpoint).

METHODS

A total of 150 lesions from 134 patients (November 2018 to June 2019) were randomized 1:1 between biopsy with a Franseen needle and a Fork-tip needle. The groups were compared regarding the quality of the tissue samples and diagnostic accuracy.

RESULTS

Of 150 lesions, 75 were pancreatic and 75 were other solid lesions in and around the GI tract. There was no statistically significant difference between the Franseen needle and the Fork-tip needle in the yield of adequate histologic samples, 71 of 75 (94.7%) versus 72 of 75 (96%), (P = 1.00), an absolute difference of -1.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], -8.1% to 5.4%). The 2 groups were similar in the diagnostic accuracy of histologic analysis, 64 of 75 (85.3%) versus 68 of 75 (90.7%) (P = .45), absolute difference -5.4% (95% CI, -15.7% to 5%); and in the diagnostic accuracy of combined cytologic and histologic analysis, 65 of 75 (86.7%) versus 69 of 75 (92%) (P = .43), absolute difference -5.3% (95% CI, -15.2% to 4.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

There was no significant difference in the performance of the Franseen needle versus the Fork-tip needle. Both needles achieved a high yield of histologic tissue samples and high diagnostic accuracy. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03672032.).

An exclusive fine-needle biopsy approach to sampling solid lesions under EUS guidance: a prospective cohort study

Background

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) is increasingly utilized to enhance the cytological yield of sampling solid lesions, but its superiority over existing fine-needle aspiration (FNA) platforms has not been clearly demonstrated. The aim of our study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy and procedural outcomes of FNB using a new Franseen-tip needle to that of a traditional FNA in sampling solid lesions under EUS guidance.

Methods

Consecutive patients with solid lesions referred for EUS-FNB sampling were included. Procedure-related outcomes were collected prospectively including patient demographics, number of passes performed, diagnostic sample adequacy, adverse events, and recovery time. The Acquire needle was used to sample all lesions in the study group. Consecutive EUS-FNA procedures performed to sample solid lesions using the Expect needle were utilized as controls.

Results

There were 180 patients undergoing EUS-FNB compared to 183 patients undergoing EUS-FNA procedures for solid-lesion sampling. The procedure time was significantly shorter in patients who underwent FNB compared to FNA (mean: 37.4 vs 44.9 minutes, P < 0.001). Significantly fewer passes were performed in the FNB cohort compared to the FNA group (mean: 2.9 vs 3.8, P < 0.001). The cytologic diagnostic yield was significantly higher in the FNB group compared to the FNA group (98.3% vs 90.2%, P = 0.003). No significant difference in the incidence of adverse events was observed between the FNB and FNA groups (1.1% vs 0.5%, P = 0.564).

Conclusions

An FNB-exclusive approach to sampling solid lesions under EUS guidance is safe and feasible, and may result in fewer overall passes, shorter procedure time, and improved diagnostic adequacy. FNB may replace FNA as the primary sampling modality of choice in all solid lesions.

Comparison of the reverse bevel versus Franseen type endoscopic ultrasound needle

BACKGROUND

Reverse bevel (RB) needle is widely used for endoscopic ultrasound fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB). A 3-plane symmetrical needle with Franseen geometry (FG) has recently become available.

AIM

To compare the clinical efficacy of FG to that of RB needle.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of all adult patients who underwent EUS-FNB for solid and mixed lesions either with 22G RB needle or 22G FG needle between January 2016 and February 2019 was undertaken. All cytology slides were reviewed by an independent gastrointestinal cytopathologist blinded to the needle used and the initial cytology report. The primary and secondary outcomes were to assess the sample adequacy using Euro-cytology criteria and the number of cell clusters, respectively.

RESULTS

Two hundred and twenty six procedures were included in the study. RB needle was used in 128 procedures and FG needle in 98 procedures. The baseline characteristics of both groups were comparable. On multivariable analysis, FG needle (P = 0.02) and location of the lesion (P < 0.01) were independently associated with adequate tissue. Further, the use of FG needle (P = 0.04) and the size of the lesion (P = 0.02) were independently associated with acquisition of increased number of cell clusters.

CONCLUSION

FG needle is superior to RB needle in acquiring adequate tissue and attaining higher number of cell clusters for solid and mixed lesions.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Biopsy Needles Provide Higher Diagnostic Yield Compared to Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration Needles When Sampling Solid Pancreatic Lesions: A Meta-Analysis

Background/Aims

Studies comparing the utility of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) for solid pancreatic lesions have been inconclusive with no clear superiority. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the diagnostic accuracy and safety between the two sampling techniques.

Methods

We performed a systematic search of randomized controlled trials published between 2012 and 2019. The primary outcome was overall diagnostic accuracy. Secondary outcomes included adverse event rates, cytopathologic and histopathologic accuracy, and the mean number of passes required to obtain adequate tissue between FNA and FNB needles. Fixed and random effect models with pooled estimates of target outcomes were developed.

Results

Eleven studies involving 1,365 participants were included for analysis. When compared to FNB, FNA had a significant reduction in diagnostic accuracy (81% and 87%, p=0.005). In addition, FNA provided reduced cytopathologic accuracy (82% and 89%, p=0.04) and an increased number of mean passes required compared to FNB (2.3 and 1.6, respectively, p<0.0001). There was no difference in adverse event rate between FNA and FNB needles (1.8% and 2.3% respectively, p=0.64).

Conclusions

FNB provides superior diagnostic accuracy without compromising safety when compared to FNA. FNB should be readily considered by endosonographers when evaluating solid pancreatic masses.

Factors associated with diagnostic accuracy, technical success and adverse events of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) is used to diagnose lesions within or adjacent to the digestive tract. However, there is no report on the overall diagnostic accuracy, technical success, and adverse events of FNB. The aims of this study were to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to comprehensively assess the diagnostic accuracy, technical success, and adverse events of FNB.

METHODS

Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for relevant articles published in English from January 1998 to May 2019 (No. CRD42019141647). Primary outcomes were EUS-FNB related diagnostic accuracy rate, technical success rate, and adverse event rate.

RESULTS

A total of 51 articles including 5330 patients met our criteria. The overall EUS-FNB related diagnostic accuracy rate, technical success rate, and adverse event rate was 90.82% [95% confidence interval (CI) 88.69-92.76%], 99.71% [95% CI 99.35-99.93%], and 0.59% [95% CI 0.29-1.0%], respectively. Biopsy with 22G needle could increase the diagnostic accuracy rate and technical success rate to 92.17% [95% CI 89.32-94.61%] and 99.88% [95% CI 99.64-99.99%], respectively, and decrease the adverse event to 0.37% [95% CI 0.08-0.87%]. Moreover, it showed that 22G needle was an independent factor associated with a higher diagnostic accuracy rate and technical success rate and a lower adverse event rate (P = 0.04, P < 0.001, and P = 0.04, respectively) by univariate and multivariate meta-regression analyses.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy is a feasible and safe procedure for lesions within or adjacent to the digestive tract. Biopsy using 22G needle could increase the diagnostic accuracy rate and technical success rate and decrease adverse event rate during the FNB procedure.

EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy sampling versus FNA in the diagnosis of subepithelial lesions: a large multicenter study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Although conventional EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) has previously been considered first-line for sampling subepithelial lesions (SELs), variable accuracy has resulted in increased use of fine-needle biopsy (FNB) sampling to improve diagnostic yield. The primary aim of this study was to compare FNA versus FNB sampling for the diagnosis of SELs.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, retrospective study to evaluate the outcomes of EUS-FNA and EUS-guided FNB sampling (EUS-FNB) of SELs over a 3-year period. Demographics, lesion characteristics, sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, number of needle passes, diagnostic adequacy of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE), cell block accuracy, and adverse events were analyzed. Subgroup analyses were performed comparing FNA versus FNB sampling by location and diagnostic yield with or without ROSE. Multivariable logistic regression was also performed.

RESULTS

Two hundred twenty-nine patients with SELs (115 FNA and 114 FNB sampling) underwent EUS-guided sampling. Mean patient age was 60.86 ± 12.84 years. Most lesions were gastric in location (75.55%) and from the fourth layer (71.18%). Cell block for FNB sampling required fewer passes to achieve conclusive diagnosis (2.94 ± 1.09 vs 3.55 ± 1.55; P = .003). The number of passes was not different for ROSE adequacy (P = .167). Immunohistochemistry was more able to be successfully performed in more FNB sampling samples (69.30% vs 40.00%; P < .001). Overall, sensitivity and accuracy were superior for FNB sampling versus FNA (79.41% vs 51.92% [P = .001] and 88.03% vs 77.19% [P = .030], respectively). On subgroup analysis, sensitivity and accuracy of FNB sampling alone was superior to FNA + ROSE (79.03% vs 46.67% [P = .001] and 87.25% vs 68.00% [P = .024], respectively). There was no significant difference in diagnostic yield of FNB sampling alone versus FNB sampling + ROSE (P > .05). Multivariate analysis showed no predictors associated with accuracy. One minor adverse event was reported in the FNA group.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-FNB was superior to EUS-FNA in the diagnosis of SELs. EUS-FNB was also superior to EUS-FNA alone and EUS-FNA + ROSE. These results suggest EUS-FNB should be considered a first-line modality and may suggest a reduced role for ROSE in the diagnosis of SELs. However, a large randomized controlled trial is required to confirm our findings.

Evaluation of endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration versus fine-needle biopsy and impact of rapid on-site evaluation for pancreatic masses

Background and study aims  Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) is traditionally considered a first-line strategy for diagnosing pancreatic lesions; however, given less than ideal accuracy rates, fine-needle biopsy (FNB) has been recently developed to yield histological tissue. The aim of this study was to compare diagnostic yield and safety between EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB in sampling of pancreatic masses. Patients and methods  This was a multicenter retrospective study to evaluate efficacy and safety of EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB for pancreatic lesions. Baseline characteristics including sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy, were evaluated. Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) diagnostic adequacy, cell-block accuracy, and adverse events were analyzed. Subgroup analyses comparing FNA versus FNB route of tissue acquisition and comparison between methods with or without ROSE were performed. Multivariable logistic regression was also performed. Results  A total of 574 patients (n = 194 FNA, n = 380 FNB) were included. Overall sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of FNB versus FNA were similar [(89.09 % versus 85.62 %; P  = 0.229), (98.04 % versus 96.88 %; P  = 0.387), and 90.29 % versus 87.50 %; P  = 0.307)]. Number of passes for ROSE adequacy and cell-block accuracy were comparable for FNA versus FNB [(3.06 ± 1.62 versus 3.04 ± 1.88; P  = 0.11) and (3.08 ± 1.63 versus 3.35 ± 2.02; P  = 0.137)]. FNA + ROSE was superior to FNA alone regarding sensitivity and accuracy [91.96 % versus 70.83 %; P  < 0.001) and (91.80 % versus 80.28 %; P  = 0.020)]. Sensitivity of FNB + ROSE and FNB alone were superior to FNA alone [(92.17 % versus 70.83 %; P  < 0.001) and (87.44 % versus 70.83 %; P  < 0.001)]. There was no difference in sensitivity though improved accuracy between FNA + ROSE versus FNB alone [(91.96 % versus 87.44 %; P  = 0.193) and (91.80 % versus 80.72 %; P  = 0.006)]. FNB + ROSE was more accurate than FNA + ROSE (93.13 % versus 91.80 % ; P  = 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed ROSE was a significant predictor of accuracy [OR 2.60 (95 % CI, 1.41-4.79)]. One adverse event occurred after FNB resulting in patient death. Conclusion  EUS-FNB allowed for more consistent cell-block evaluation as compared to EUS-FNA. EUS-FNA + ROSE was found to have a similar sensitivity to EUS-FNB alone suggesting a reduced need for ROSE as part of the standard algorithm of pancreatic sampling. While FNB alone produced similar diagnostic findings to EUS-FNA + ROSE, FNB + ROSE still was noted to increase diagnostic yield. This finding may favor a unique role for FNB + ROSE, suggesting it may be useful in cases when previous EUS-guided sampling may have been indeterminate.

Advances in the endoscopic management of malignant biliary obstruction

Biliary obstruction is common in pancreatobiliary malignancies and has a negative impact on the patient’s quality of life, postoperative complications, and survival rates. Particularly in the last decade, there has been enormous progress regarding the diagnostic and therapeutic options in patients with malignant biliary obstruction. Endoscopy has given a new insight in this direction and novel techniques have been developed for the better characterization and treatment of malignant strictures. We herein summarize the available data on the different endoscopic techniques, and clarify their role in the diagnosis and treatment of malignant biliary obstructive disease. Finally, we propose an algorithm that can facilitate management decisions in these patients.

Suction versus slow-pull for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of pancreatic tumors: a prospective randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Suction (S) is commonly used to improve cell acquisition during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). Slow-pull (SP) sampling is another technique that might procure good quality specimens with less bloodiness. We aimed to determine if SP improves the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA of pancreatic masses.

METHODS

Patients with pancreatic solid masses were randomized to four needle passes with both techniques in an alternate fashion. Sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive values were calculated. Cellularity and bloodiness of cytological samples were assessed and compared according to the technique.

RESULTS

Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of suction vs. SP were 95.2% vs. 92.3%; 100% vs. 100; 95.7% vs. 93%, respectively. As to the association of methods, they were 95.6, 100 and 96%, respectively. Positive predictive values for S and SP were 100%. There was no difference in diagnostic yield between S and SP (p = 0.344). Cellularity of samples obtained with SP and Suction were equivalent in both smear evaluation (p = 0.119) and cell-block (0.980). Bloodiness of SP and suction techniques were similar as well.

CONCLUSIONS

S and SP techniques provide equivalent sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy. Association of methods seems to improve diagnostic yield. Suction does not increase the bloodiness of samples compared to slow-pull.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition of solid mass lesions of the pancreas: A retrospective comparison study of fine-needle aspiration and fine-needle biopsy

BACKGROUND

Although endoscopic ultrasound guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) has emerged as an alternative to fine-needle aspiration (FNA) for the sampling of solid pancreatic mass lesions, it remains unclear which method is more effective. We compared the diagnostic yields of FNA, FNB, and combined FNA/FNB at a tertiary care institution.

METHODS

Specimens from EUS-FNA (04/2014-08/2017) and EUS-FNB (10/2015-08/2017) with SharkCore needle of pancreatic solid mass lesions were retrieved. Clinical, radiologic, and pathologic data was recorded. Pathology results of malignancy/neoplasms with uncertain malignant potential were considered as true positive. The "negative" cases included were with ≥6 months of follow-up. Nondiagnostic cases showed unremarkable pancreatic tissue, nonpancreatic elements, atypia, or features suspicious for malignancy. Diagnostic yield was defined as percentage of lesions sampled in which a benign or malignant tissue diagnosis, as defined above, was obtained. Statistical comparisons were performed using Fisher's exact test and univariable and multivariable logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

The study cohort included 76 FNA only cases, 88 FNB only cases, and 40 combined FNA/FNB cases. Diagnostic yields were 70% (FNA), 70% (FNB), and 83% (FNA/FNB), which were not statistically different. Increase in lesion size and presence of ROSE were significantly associated with a diagnostic outcome on both univariable and multivariable analysis, unlike the number of passes.

CONCLUSION

Our results demonstrate that for solid pancreatic lesions, the diagnostic yields of FNA, FNB, and combined FNA and FNB are comparable. Presence of ROSE and increasing lesion size increased the diagnostic yield while the number of passes had no significant impact.

EUS tissue acquisition: From A to B

EUS-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) has made rapid development since its introduction in the early 1990s. The technique is widely accepted and invaluable for staging and diagnosis of a variety of upper gastrointestinal and mediastinal lesions. Fine-needle aspiration (FNA) has long been the gold standard, but due to its limitations such as the inability to retain stroma and associated cellular architecture, novel biopsy needles (FNB) were designed. Overall, FNA and FNB needles perform seemingly equally in terms of diagnostic accuracy, however, the second-generation FNB needles require less passes. The third-generation FNB needles (crown-cut needle types) seem to be preferable to FNA needles as well as to the second-generation FNB needles, when larger histological specimens and preserved tissue architecture are required. EUS-TA is constantly under development, and new applications of this technique include tumor risk stratification according to its genetic profile as well as minimally invasive creation of patient-derived organoids, hallmarks of personized medicine. It remains yet to be shown, whether these applications will lead to a decisive shift from aspiration to biopsy, i.e., from A to B.

Present and Future of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition in Solid Pancreatic Tumors

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) is a well-established method for pathological diagnosis of solid pancreatic neoplasm. It can be performed either as EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) or EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUSFNB). The incidence of adverse events related to EUS-TA is less than 1%. The factors that affect the diagnostic accuracy and specimen adequacy include the techniques used, type and size of the needle, competency of endosonographers, presence of cytopathologists/ cytotechnologists, and rapid on-site examination. EUS-TA may contribute to precision medicine through obtaining tissue samples for next-generation sequencing. The current status, several clinical issues for diagnostic yield and adverse events, and future perspectives of EUS-FNA/FNB for diagnosing pancreatic neoplasm have been discussed in this review article.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of solid pancreatic masses: the fine needle aspiration or fine needle biopsy dilemma. Is the best needle yet to come?

Fine needle aspiration (FNA) is currently the standard of care for sampling pancreatic solid masses by using endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). The accuracy of the technique is reported to be high, especially if coupled with the rapid on site evaluation (ROSE), and it has a high safety profile. However, FNA presents some limitations, such as the small amount of tissue that can be collected and the inability of obtaining a core tissue with intact histological architecture, which is relevant to perform immunohistochemical analysis, molecular profiling and, therefore, targeted therapies. Moreover, the presence of the ROSE by an expert cytopathologist is very important to maximize the diagnostic yield of FNA technique; however, it is not widely available, especially in small centers. Hence, the introduction of EUS fine needle biopsy (FNB) with a new generation of needles, which show a high safety profile too and a satisfying diagnostic accuracy even in the absence of ROSE, could be the key to overcome the limitations of FNA. However, FNB has not yet shown diagnostic superiority over FNA. Considering all the technical aspects of FNA and FNB, the different types of needle currently available, comparisons in term of diagnostic yield, and the different techniques of sampling, a tailored approach should be used in order to determine the needle that is most appropriate for the different specific scenarios.

New Era of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition: Next-Generation Sequencing by Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Sampling for Pancreatic Cancer

Pancreatic cancer is a lethal cancer with an increasing incidence. Despite improvements in chemotherapy, patients with pancreatic cancer continue to face poor prognoses. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) is the primary method for obtaining tissue samples of pancreatic cancer. Due to advancements in next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies, multiple parallel sequencing can be applied to EUS-TA samples. Genomic biomarkers for therapeutic stratification in pancreatic cancer are still lacking, however, NGS can unveil potential predictive genomic biomarkers of treatment response. Thus, the importance of NGS using EUS-TA samples is becoming recognized. In this review, we discuss the recent advances in EUS-TA application for NGS of pancreatic cancer.

Prospective comparative study of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle biopsy and unroofing biopsy

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Adequate tissue acquisition is important in making treatment decisions for patients with upper gastrointestinal subepithelial tumors (SETs). This study aimed to compare the outcomes of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) with those of the unroofing biopsy technique.

METHODS

This study was a single-center, prospective comparative study conducted at Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine. A total of 39 patients with SETs ≥15 mm were enrolled between January 2016 and August 2017.

RESULTS

Of the 39 patients, 28 underwent biopsy with both techniques (4 underwent only unroofing and 7 underwent only EUS-FNB). Histological diagnosis was made with EUS-FNB in 64.3% and unroofing biopsy in 78.6% (p = 0.344), and immunohistochemical diagnosis was made with EUS-FNB in 46.4% and unroofing biopsy in 67.9% (p = 0.180). In the subgroup analysis (28 patients), there was no significant difference in diagnostic yield between the 2 methods The mean procedural time with EUS-FNB was shorter than that with unroofing biopsy (p < 0.001). The larger SET (≥ 20 mm) (p = 0.035) and satisfaction of procedure (p = 0.019) were positively associated with successful histological diagnosis by EUS-FNB.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no significant difference in the histological diagnostic yield for SETs between the EUS-FNB and unroofing biopsy techniques (CinicalTrials.gov. identifier NCT02646241).

A multicenter randomized trial comparing a 25-gauge EUS fine-needle aspiration device with a 20-gauge EUS fine-needle biopsy device

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Several studies have compared EUS-guided FNA with fine-needle biopsy (FNB), but none have proven superiority. We performed a multicenter randomized controlled trial to compare the performance of a commonly used 25-gauge FNA needle with a newly designed 20-gauge FNB needle.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with a solid lesion were randomized in this international multicenter study between a 25-gauge FNA (EchoTip Ultra) or a 20-gauge FNB needle (ProCore). The primary endpoint was diagnostic accuracy for malignancy and the Bethesda classification (non-diagnostic, benign, atypical, malignant). Technical success, safety, and sample quality were also assessed. Multivariable and supplementary analyses were performed to adjust for confounders.

RESULTS

A total of 608 patients were allocated to FNA (n = 306) or FNB (n = 302); 312 pancreatic lesions (51%), 147 lymph nodes (24%), and 149 other lesions (25%). Technical success rate was 100% for the 25-gauge FNA and 99% for the 20-gauge FNB needle (P = .043), with no differences in adverse events. The 20-gauge FNB needle outperformed 25-gauge FNA in terms of histologic yield (77% vs 44%, P < .001), accuracy for malignancy (87% vs 78%, P = .002) and Bethesda classification (82% vs 72%, P = .002). This was robust when corrected for indication, lesion size, number of passes, and presence of an on-site pathologist (odds ratio, 3.53; 95% confidence interval, 1.55-8.56; P = .004), and did not differ among centers (P = .836).

CONCLUSION

The 20-gauge FNB needle outperformed the 25-gauge FNA needle in terms of histologic yield and diagnostic accuracy. This benefit was irrespective of the indication and was consistent among participating centers, supporting the general applicability of our findings. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02167074.).

Macroscopic onsite evaluation using endoscopic ultrasound fine needle biopsy as an alternative to rapid onsite evaluation

Background and aims  This study aimed to evaluate the performance of Macroscopic On-site Evaluation (MOSE) using a novel endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) fine needle biopsy (FNB) needle (22-G Franseen-tip needle, Acquire, Boston Scientific Incorporated, Boston, Massachusetts, United States), and without using Rapid On-Site Evaluation (ROSE). Method  Between May 2016 and August 2016, all consecutive patients referred to our center for EUS tissue acquisition (TA) for solid lesions underwent EUS-FNB with the 22-G Franseen-tip needle unless contra-indicated. The operator performed MOSE. If no macroscopic core was visualized, a second pass was performed. The final diagnosis was defined as unequivocal histology from EUS-TA with compatible 18 months follow-up, surgical resection, or both. We retrospectively analyzed the performance of MOSE. Results  A total of 46 consecutive patients was included, and 54 solid lesions were biopsied. The endosonographer visualized core tissue in 93 % (50/54) of targets with a single pass, of which the pathologist confirmed histologic core fragments in 94 % (47/50). Four lesions required two passes, and the overall correlation between MOSE and histologic core fragments was 94 % (48/51). Diagnostic adequacy was 98 % (53/54) with one biliary target biopsied without significant material. The overall diagnostic accuracy was 94 %. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for malignancy were 92 %, 100 %, 100 %, and 81 %, respectively. No adverse events were reported. Conclusion  Our study demonstrated that MOSE using the 22-G Franseen-tip needle could limit needle passes by accurately estimating histologic core fragments. It also demonstrated that high diagnostic adequacy and accuracy of > 90 % could be achieved without ROSE.

Prospective comparison of slow-pull and standard suction techniques of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration in the diagnosis of solid pancreatic cancer

Background

The usage of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for the diagnosis of solid pancreatic cancer is increasing, however mainly retrospective studies are available about the detailed methods of sampling.

Methods

To compare prospectively the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA samples obtained with slow-pull (SP) and with standard suction technique (SS).

Results

EUS-FNA sampling was diagnostic in 72 of 92 cases (78.3%). Diagnostic yield was 67.4% in the SS and 65.2% in the SP group. The number of smear pairs (1.84 vs. 3.56; p < 0.001) and blood contamination (1.50 vs. 2.19; p < 0.001) were significantly higher in the SS group, which resulted in lower rate of diagnostic samples (41.8% vs. 30.0%; p = 0.003). There was no difference in the cellularity (1.58 vs. 1.37; p = 0.2554), or in the sensitivity and specificity in the identification of malignancy between SP and SS subgroups (69.9, 100% vs. 73.5, 100%). Histological samples were obtained in 60 cases (with SP: 49 cases; with SS: 46 cases). There was no difference in the diagnostic yield of histological samples between the groups (63 and 58.7%).

Conclusion

The diagnostic yield, the cellularity of smears and the rate of acquiring sufficient histological material are similar in the SP and SS group, but due to lower bloodiness and decreased number of slides, the pathological diagnosis is faster and more cost-effective.

Recent advancement in EUS-guided fine needle sampling

EUS-guided tissue acquisition technique plays an essential role for evaluation of gastrointestinal tumors. Several components affect the yield of EUS-guided tissue acquisition outcomes such as sampling techniques, use of ROSE (rapid onsite evaluation), training and experience, and needle designs. In this review we discuss advancement in EUS-guided fine needle sampling.

The difference in histological yield between 19G EUS-FNA and EUS-fine-needle biopsy needles

Background and Objective:

EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) with acquisition of tissue core is possible with the use of 19G fine-needle aspiration (FNA) and dedicated biopsy needles. Published data of direct comparisons between biopsy needles are more limited compared to the abundant data comparing EUS-FNA with EUS-FNB. We performed a retrospective study to determine the difference in histologic yield between 19G FNA needle and EUS-FNB needles in patients with solid masses.

Materials and Methods:

Consecutive patients who underwent EUS-FNB of solid masses from January 2014 to July 2018 were identified from a database. The difference in histologic yield between needles was analyzed.

Results:

A total of 159 patients underwent 179 EUS-FNB procedures (median of 2 needle passes [range: 1–4]). The use of 19G FNA, 19G, 20G, and 22G FNB needles allowed acquisition of a histologic core in 67.4% (29/43), 72.5% (29/40), 82.1% (46/56), and 75.9% (22/29), respectively (P = 0.368). A significant difference in the yield of histologic core was detected when 19G FNA needle was compared with 22G Acquire™ FNB needle (67.4% [29/43] vs. 94.1% [16/17], P = 0.032). The presence of histologic core was significantly associated with a positive diagnosis (95.6% vs. 30.2%, P < 0.0001).

Conclusion:

EUS-FNB with acquisition of histologic core improved the diagnostic yield. Dedicated FNB needles appeared to achieve a higher yield of histologic core compared to 19G FNA needles.

A Primary Retroperitoneal Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma: A Challenging Diagnosis

Although quite rare, retroperitoneum can harbour malignant limphomas. On the grounds that the anatomical location is uncommon and the symptoms are scarce, the diagnosis is usually late and challenging. Imaging methods such as magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography (CT) and positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT), can characterize and locate the tumor while endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) may provide pathological confirmation. We present the clinical case of a fifty-five-year-old female that is admitted to our hospital with epigastric discomfort, nausea and vomiting. CT showed a homogenously enhancing mass lesion that encased the pancreas, in contact with the portal vein, inferior vena cava, invading splenomesenteric confluence. To investigate further, EUS-FNA was decided and it revealed lymphocyte proliferation suggestive for the diagnosis of lymphoma. Hereinafter, surgical intervention was performed and immunohistochemical analysis and sub classification of lymphoma was obtained. The final diagnosis was non-Hodgkin lymphoma, Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma (DLBCL). Poly-chemotherapy with R-CHOP was initiated. At the end of the treatment fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) was performed and no pathological findings were found. A brief review of literature is also provided.